Carl Sagan used to say, that when there are a number of equally compelling theories, start with the simplest one, because it usually proves to be true:
That is why, despite hugely different environmental conditions in the past, including far higher CO2 levels, there has never been a ‘tipping’ point that changed the pattern of glaciations and interglacials that have occurred with clockwork precision based on astronomical movements throughout the historical record.
Nor need we fear any man made addition to solar warming because the proportion of the warming which we would be responsible for would be insignificant against the scale of the solar induced portion.
In any event, since cooling is worse than warming for humanity and most life on the planet, our production of CO2, however large in our puny terms, would be wholly beneficial for life on Earth.
Here is a paraphrased version of the Carl Sagan bunkometer taken from Demon Haunted World:
1. Whenever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the “evidence” by knowledgable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight as “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that there are no authorities; at most; there are “experts”.
4. Spin a variety of hypotheses. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each. The ones that survive are the ones to do in depth study on.
5.Do not become attached to any hypothesis just because it’s yours. Find reasons for rejecting all, including your own, hypothesis.
6. Quantify. If whatever you are explaining has a measure, quantify it so that measurement is more possible. Vague hypothesis, or those difficult to quantify will be the most difficult to prove or disprove. Ie: There is a Sasquatch.
7. If there is a chain argument, then each and every link must work, including the premise.
8. Use Occam’s Razor; which is to choose the hypothesis that explains the data in the simplest terms.
9. Ask: is the Hypothesis testable and falsifiable. Hypothesis that are not testable are not worth much. Could you duplicate accurately, at least theoretically, the hypothesis?
Related post @ Celestial Junk
Could be the world’s biggest case of ‘rats fleeing a sinking ship’ – Al Gore hauled into court on multi-million dollar fraud charges.
I’m still waiting for Hoss to answer fellas. I’ll get back to you tomorrow if he doesn’t. Just one thought for now. DrD, there is no specific burden of proof on me. I know what I see, and have posted some web based material on the subject. No one refuted it. Therefore, I will wait for you fellas to show me the beef.
Hugger
Paul: You base your opinion on your assumption that I do not accept anything a skeptic says. You may think that, but it is not true. However, and here is the absolute key point – whenever I criticize something, I always backup my opinion with specific problems I have with the science or the logic. Can you say the same?
Also, you state that you expected me to answer in the context of this post. I did not think it was that relevant. However all you had to do was to ask again being specific instead of accusing me of being dishonest. For example, I asked you for specific scientific findings that would make you change your mind and instead of answering you provided some general statements about scientific process. That is not what I am talking about, but instead of accusing you of dishonesty, I assume you did not understand.
So let me ask again. What specific scientific tests or calculations or observations would it take to convince you of AGW? Again, I am hoping that you will be as specific as possible.
Regards,
John
But if you wish to discuss the tenants of science that Dr. Sagan put forward I can offer some opinions.
1. Whenever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts”. In fact this is a key point and the IPCC shows that there are a huge number of scientists in a number very different fields and areas who each contribute a little bit to the whole. By the way, I pointed this out to you in the past and you made a derogatory comment about them all “singing with the choir”.
2. Encourage substantive debate on the “evidence” by knowledgable proponents of all points of view. Again, I see this going on all the time. But what I also see is people introducing old theories that have been rejected to valid scientific reasons without any new supporting evidence.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight as “authorities” You claim it is not relevant, but I see it happening all the time by people who support a point of view without understanding the science. I have argued with people in the past who post about a topic and their only support was to say that the people who wrote it are very smart – smarter than I am. That is the epitome of appeal to authority.
4. Spin a variety of hypotheses. In the years I have been reading up on the topic there have been a number of hypothesis considered some of which have been validated and accepted (e.g. black soot) and some which the observations do not support (e.g. cosmic rays for clouds). However all are considered.
5.Do not become attached to any hypothesis just because it’s yours. You say fail, but I don’t see this. Can you substantiate your claim.
6. Quantify. If whatever you are explaining has a measure, quantify it so that measurement is more possible. A large number of the components of AGW are quantified and measures – for example the ability of the CO2 molecule to absorb or emit IR radiation. Also, I listed above some very specific conditions which would – in my mind – constitute a failure of the hypothesis.
7. If there is a chain argument, then each and every link must work, including the premise. You reject this because you claim #6 is not met but as I just showed, there are specific conditions.
8. Use Occam’s Razor; which is to choose the hypothesis that explains the data in the simplest terms. You claim that the scientists ignore the sun, which is clearly absurd. They do think the sun is the primary driver of climate, but they also think it is constant based on what the observations have shown.
9. Ask: is the Hypothesis testable and falsifiable. Hypothesis that are not testable are not worth much. Covered already.
In regards to Harris’s First Law, I see you a law and raise you the Dunning Kruger Effect.
Regards,
John
John: You back up your claims with specific problems you have with the logic or science; true, but those who challenge you on the science specifically,do the same. And, there are far more capable and schooled scientists than you who make up the denier side. I simply refer to them.
I’m not qualified to debate the specific science, but I am qualified to comment on the glaring problems in the politics of AGW and especially the functioning of the IPCC.
I take great issue, as you know, with your refusal to ever give “deniers” any credit, which tells me you are married to the AGW theory … and thus, bias. If, as a scientist, you only attack the other side and don’t offer a balanced critism giving credit where credit is due, then you are a partisan … like me.
I admit my bias, but for entirely different reasons. I’m interested in the politics of the issue, and the process … not the numbers. Frankly, I wouldn’t stand behind any climate theory at this point, from anyone. The politics and process are broken, and therefore suspect. I post “denier” points of view not because they are “facts”, but because they represent a serious, knowledgable, and valid opposition to AGW theory.
My answer to your question: I expect the IPCC to live up to the basic standards outlined in the Sagan list; not literally, but in the basic sense. It is my contention, that the IPCC has not even come close to doing so. If the IPCC does so, and it’s science still stands, then I … and likely many hundreds of thousands of doubters, will begrudgingly accept that AGW has a huge forcing influence. Until the process is fixed though, I’m not buying anything. Until deniers are treated as peers by the IPCC scientists, I’ll be a doubter. Until the IPCC adopts transparency, I won’t bite. Until the IPCC includes more than just a small number scientists who are AGW fanatics, I won’t buy a word of it. Why? Because the process has become political, and not scientific, no matter the numbers.
John: I reject your glowing report card for the IPCC. I’m not going into the whole thing, because it’d take pages for us to debate it out. I’ll just deal with #1.
You claim that the IPCC has used the research of a “huge” number of scientists … define “huge”. The IPCC makes this claim (2500), but doesn’t offer transparency to it’s review process or any way of checking on this “huge” number of scientists. One can’t even determine from the IPCC which specific studies were accepted, rejected, or used, and why. The actual number of scientists actively involved with the IPCC seems small, with a handful of key personalities making the decisions. Most involved are not scientists but bureaucrats, activists, and politicians. Much has been written about this fact, with some members of the denier community having to do battle with the IPCC just to get documents that are supposed to be public.
In order to prove your point then, could you present me with a list of all the studies considered by the IPCC, and a detailed description of the reviews. Since this is 2008, I expect you’ll find it all in one location and just need to give me the link(s) at the IPCC. Lists of names without designations and links to their CVs etc. don’t count. Elementary (for public consumption) descriptions of review, don’t count. Lists of “studies”, without accompanying links to those actual studies, don’t count. I’m asking for varifiable information, not propoganda.
Just for fun, provide a “huge” list of IPCC scientists as well. Not a sign up list like the “deniers” often give, but that huge list of actual researchers who contributed work. Somewhere there are 2500 scientists who contributed to the IPCC process … I trust they did more than sign a sheet of paper.
I’ve tried to find the above, and can’t. So I call “fail” on #1.
ps: Greg is right … I shouldn’t have resorted to name calling … I’ll save that for Al Gore.
I’m still waiting for Hoss to answer fellas. I’ll get back to you tomorrow if he doesn’t.
Sea level changed has been argued here before. Your side lost. Search the archives.
Paul: But if you link to others who refute my points, how do you know that they are correct?
In regards to my not giving praise to the good points in a scientific paper, it may seem cruel, but that is what science is like. Responses to papers in articles are almost always criticisms of it (I can’t think of a case that wasn’t) – but that is the way science works. I remember in grad school, the instructor gave us a paper to review which we did. The next day the instructor showed us his published reply. We read it and one of the students commented that he must hate the author of the paper at which point the Instructor replied “Who, Jim – no we go drinking together whenever we meet up”.
But even so I do give credit where I think credit is due. I think that Andrew Watts is providing a useful service in documenting the state of the climate stations and have said so several times (and at least once on your blog). However sometimes he produces analysis which I don’t agree with and again I say so along with a reason.
And finally, you have still not answered my question. You have stated why you don’t trust the process at this time. But lets say the process was working – what science would convince you of the validity of AGW? You asked me this question and I answered, now it is your turn.
Regards,
John
what science would convince you of the validity of AGW?
Actual measurements of the cooler atmosphere adding heat to the warmer earth would be a start. Until such time as that happens I’ll assume all paper science is similarily flawed.
In regards to the IPCC, I understand that the information is not available in the specific form that you would like it, however it is all there. In fact the production of the AR4 involved unprecedented openness. The whole report was subject to several rounds of external review made up of people from outside the IPCC.
A list of their comments and the responses are available on the internet. I remember my time as a grad student when literature reviews involved hours in the library instead of pressing a button on the internet. As I said, it may not be in the form you wish, but it is more accessible and transparent than things were 20 years ago.
Regards,
John
ol hoss: I keep asking, what do you see when you look at the ground. Very simple, no fancy measurements necessary.
Regards,
John
John: But if you link to others who refute my points, how do you know that they are correct?
I don’t, as I explained, it’s not why I link to them.
now it is your turn
I thought I explained myself. When I’m convinced that proper scientific process, free of political manipulation has taken place. If at that time, the hypothesis still stands, I’ll accept it. At this point in time I don’t trust the process, so I don’t accept the thesis.
As far as the IPCC being open and subjected to review by independant sources: You’ve lost me on that as I’ve seen no evidence of such. Review was done by very small groups of individuals, who were like minded. Very few scientists actually belong to the IPCC … but scores work in the shadows … and are only independent in the broadest of terms. The IPCC rules of operation state that the review process must be made public and detailed out … I can’t find anything like that available.
In regards to the IPCC, I understand that the information is not available in the specific form that you would like it, however it is all there
So, I gather that you have never been able, yourself, to track down and produce a timeline and sequence of all the AGW research and those who produced it, that led us to Kyoto. If you were teaching a class, for instance, that tracked the entire process (like history), and focused on the issues, people, theories, and review … you couldn’t do it without digging and digging to find it.
Considering it’s 2008 and the IPCC wants us to spend trillions of dollars on stopping AGW, the least, the very least, they could do is provide linked detail like any blogger could provide. It always amazes me that this incredible lack of transparency doesn’t make you nervous. We left the Commodore 64 era a long time ago.
What you are saying, is that if I were a government official and I wanted to study the veracity of the IPCC claims, I’d have to go rooting around the internet and print media to track down the data, papers, individuals, processes, etc., before I could even begin to put together an anylysis.
I’m a political animal, and this fact alone tells me that something is broken … very very badly.
Paul: If it is the supposed political influence that is bothering you then you should accept everything up to about 1980 or so. For example the basic idea that CO2 was producing a greenhouse effect was first proposed about 100 years ago. A large part of our experimental work on CO2 and IR radiation came out of research by the military in the 1950’s who were interested in developing heat seeking technology. So are you prepared to accept that part of it?
In regards to the transparency of the IPCC, the limits of Kate’s blog that eats any post of mine that has any more than 1 link precludes me from linking all the appropriate parts, but here is this is the list of comments by the expert reviews and the responses to the comments (click the agree). All the comments were recorded and responded to.
The question is who is an expert reviewer and the answer is – literally – anyone. All you had to do was request to be a reviewer and sign an agreement that you would keep your review confidential until the final report is released. Thus there was the opportunity for anyone to review the report. So it was not a collection of like minded individuals who looked at it, but a broad group including a number of prominent skeptics.
You also say ” It always amazes me that this incredible lack of transparency doesn’t make you nervous.. That is because to see no lack of transparency. Everything is available and as I said before is in a much more available form than when I was a grad student.
Regards,
John